Mr Lloyd Ellis

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Lloyd Ellis

Teacher reference number: 1877551

Teacher's date of birth: 30 December 1993

Location teacher worked: Uttoxeter, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 August 2024

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Lloyd Ellis, of Uttoxeter, West Midlands.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Lloyd Ellis: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Lloyd Ellis Teacher ref number: 1877551 Teacher date of birth: 30 December 1993 TRA reference: 22548 Date of determination: 23 August 2024 Former employer: Abbotsholme School, Staffordshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 23 August 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Lloyd Ellis. The panel members were (Mr Nicholas Catterall lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Ronan Tyrer (lay panellist) and Miss Nikki Heron (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Natalia Constantine of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Ellis was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 31 May 2024. It was alleged that Mr Ellis was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that he was convicted of: 1. Sexual activity with female 13-17 offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust, on 8 May 2021, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s16(1)(e)(i); and 2. Sexual activity with female 13-17 offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust, between 8 May 2021 and 25 August 2021, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s16(1)(e)(i). Mr Ellis provided no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Ellis was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Ellis. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Ellis in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’) which was in the relevant period and was sent on 31 May 2024. The panel concluded that Mr Ellis’ absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. In particular, the panel noted an email from Mr Ellis dated 23 February 20234, in response to an email from the presenting officer’s firm, in which Mr Ellis confirmed he did not want anything to do with teaching or the TRA. The panel noted that Mr Ellis had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Ellis was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. 5 Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Ellis was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 14 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 15 to 202 In addition, the panel considered the bundle of documents relevant to the application to proceed in the absence of Mr Ellis. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Ellis was employed as an outdoor education teacher at Abbotsholme School (‘the School’) from September 2018. Between May 2021 and August 2021, Mr Ellis was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with Pupil A, who was [REDACTED]. On 25 August 2021, Pupil A disclosed her sexual relationship with Mr Ellis to [REDACTED]. Pupil A’s [REDACTED] informed the headmaster the following day. Mr Ellis’ employment ceased on 31 August 2021. He was convicted at Derby Crown Court on 8 September 2022 of 2 counts of sexual activity with a girl 13 to 17 – not s.21 premises - adult abuse of position of trust. He was later sentenced at Stafford Crown Court on 18 August 2023. 6 The matter was referred to the TRA on 28 September 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Sexual activity with female 13-17 offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust, on 8 May 2021, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s16(1)(e)(i); and 2. Sexual activity with female 13-17 offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust, between 8 May 2021 and 25 August 2021, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s16(1)(e)(i). The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Stafford Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Ellis had been convicted on 8 September 2022 of 2 counts of adult sexual activity with a girl aged 13-17. The panel specifically noted the certificate of conviction stated that Mr Ellis had been convicted upon his own admissions. In respect of the allegations, Mr Ellis was sentenced at Stafford Crown Court on 18 August 2023 to 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. In addition, he was made subject to a restraining order to last until further notice; required to participate in rehabilitation activity – maximum of 35 days; required to attend unpaid work requirement – 180 hours within 12 months; ordered to register with the police for 5 years. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegations 1 and 2 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ellis, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Ellis was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards... • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, given that he had sexual intercourse with a pupil at the School. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Ellis’ behaviour in committing these offences could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. By virtue of his position, Mr Ellis was in a position of trust and responsibility in relation to Pupil A. He abused that position. The panel noted that Mr Ellis’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity, which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the convicti